Did you know?

Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?
Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction; and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers! , All currently operating?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 -100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, Which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq
that produce over 3500 new officers every 8 weeks?
Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a Televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!
WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?
BECAUSE OUR MEDIA WON'T TELL US!
Instead of reflecting our love for our country,
we get photos of flag burning incidents at
Abu Ghraib
and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive
in Iraq serves two purposes:
It is intended to undermine the world's perception
of the United States thus minimizing consequent support;
and it is intended to discourage American citizens.
Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.

society now wants to read about celebrities, shootouts at schools, Olympics

put the stuff you wrote on network news and people turn station in 3 seconds or less

Unfortunately in this instant gratification society, people give a damn about what they are told to give a damn about.

Annette Benning's character in The American President said much the same thing in that movie: "Mr. President, on election day people give a damn about what I tell them to give a damn about."

As it is, most of the main stream media intitially told us to give a damn about Iraq. Then they told us that we were losing. Now, they won't tell us anything. They want us to give a damn about global warming and Barack Obama, but ignore the good things that are happening.

"Put the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry."

We have been conditioned to accept the status quo. It didn't happen overnight, bt it has happened none the less. If a wealthy entrepeneur wanted to put out a different idea, they could, just look at Fox News. People were tired of the one-way reporting of CNN, and Rupert Murdoch saw an opportunity. How hard, really, would it be to change the status quo?

I for one want to hear about the good things going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and hell, even in our own country. Did you know that our economy was still growing? Most people don't, they think we are in a depression. According to the news, we are. It makes me sick that most media outlets will only report something bad and overlook all the good.

Maybe some enterprising person will come up with a new news outlet that does a better job then CNN, FN, MSNBC, and the network alphabet stations.

Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?
Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction; and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers! , All currently operating?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 -100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, Which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq
that produce over 3500 new officers every 8 weeks?
Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a Televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!
WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?
BECAUSE OUR MEDIA WON'T TELL US!
Instead of reflecting our love for our country,
we get photos of flag burning incidents at
Abu Ghraib
and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive
in Iraq serves two purposes:
It is intended to undermine the world's perception
of the United States thus minimizing consequent support;
and it is intended to discourage American citizens.
Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.

society now wants to read about celebrities, shootouts at schools, Olympics

put the stuff you wrote on network news and people turn station in 3 seconds or less

Precisely.

Did you know how much that cost?
Did you know how many people died?
Did you know how many lies were told?
Did you like having the wool pulled over your eyes?
Did we really care about the Iraqis in the first place?

Such compassion for the Iraqi's benny. But then again your crowd never cared what happened in Darfur or Rwanda either......

I admit, I have more compassion for 4,134 [1] confirmed deaths of U.S. soldiers and the 100,000 [2] wounded in combat. In case you don't want to remember, I find the photos of their memorials to make a rather large statement. And thinking about their loss of lives has more impact for me because of the way I view our reasoning, which wasn't compassion, for going to war.

Additionally, my compassion goes out to the, approximately, 90,000 [3] Iraqis who lost their lives thanks to our invasion--not to mention the countless wounded.

Saddam was a teddy bear compared to the havoc we wreaked on his people. And we didn't have to invade Iraq, but Cheney and Bush yearned for it: In Cheney's own words ... http://www.youtube.com/v/pT7Ik_X1HU0 [4]

In light of the Edwards quotes today, I couldn't resist reminding ya'll on that side of the fence about a few of your own doozies.

1992--The initial reasoning behind pulling out of Iraq was it wasn't worth the 100 and something American lives lost to go after that S.O.B., Saddam.

2003--Going in it was WMDs.
Then it was spreading democracy.
Then it was securing oil for the [Iraqi] people.
Now I hear compassion coming over there from the war supporters and it'd make me want to laugh, if contemplating the seriousness behind the notion didn't make me want to puke.... Sorry, I never was for this war. And the cost was and still is too high, imo.

Don't forget, the media doesn't go out of its way to report the actual costs of this war either. In my opinion, the cost heavily outweighs the rewards.

you're so full of **** sometimes it hurts, ben. you are simply incapable of seeing things w/o your own needs put forth first.

not trying to advocate us being right or wrong here, but the "*****cat" compared to us is just crap on a wicker stick.

saddam kept them down because he was an egomanical peckerhead.

while yes people are dying in our efforts, we're trying to let them live their own lives and make their own decisions. if you can't see the difference it's simply because you don't want to. people have been dying since the dawn of time and it gets old to hear "my god someone died because of us!' gets old.

I admit, I have more compassion for 4,134 [1] confirmed deaths of U.S. soldiers and the 100,000 [2] wounded in combat. In case you don't want to remember, I find the photos of their memorials to make a rather large statement. And thinking about their loss of lives has more impact for me because of the way I view our reasoning, which wasn't compassion, for going to war.

Additionally, my compassion goes out to the, approximately, 90,000 [3] Iraqis who lost their lives thanks to our invasion and countless wounded.

Saddam was a teddy bear compared to the havoc we wreaked on his people. And we didn't have to invade Iraq, but Cheney and Bush yearned for it: In Cheney's own words ... http://www.youtube.com/v/pT7Ik_X1HU0 [4]

In light of the Edwards quotes today, I couldn't resist reminding ya'll on that side of the fence about a few of your own doozies.

1992--The initial reasoning behind pulling out of Iraq was it wasn't worth the 100 and something American lives lost to go after that S.O.B., Saddam.

2003--Going in it was WMDs.
Then it was spreading democracy.
Then it was securing oil for the [Iraqi] people.
Now I hear compassion coming over there from the war supporters and it'd make me want to laugh, if contemplating the seriousness behind the notion didn't make me want to puke.... Sorry, I never was for this war. And the cost was too high, imo.

Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. "See http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242 Here is an excerpt:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

But such facts are not enough -- because for him the true question is whether civilians killed by the war are "unnecessary". I need to ask whether he thinks the civilian deaths were necessary or not. I clearly believe they were necessary to oust Saddam and save the lives he would have murdered, to free the children from prison, etc. -- in fact more necessary than the atomic bombs to force Japan's surrender If Mr. Crow is willing to accept Muslim fanatic terrorists with WMDs, or Muslim theocracy, rather than fight for Western/ Christian/ Capitalist/ Freedom, then indeed comparing death rates doesn't mean much".

Ronald Hilton - 4/25/03
-------

if you want to mourn the loss of a life at an evil power, you're placing this out of convenience, not numbers.

if you want to say saddam can do what he wants to his people, don't ever pick up human rights again as a defense.

it's not our fault people die so others can live. what you argue against isn't a US/Bush issue - it's a trait of mankind. you can hate the current messenger.

we all do at times.

but you can stop long enough to realize how things fall and while we'd all love to just get along and rodney king through life it's never been that easy.

people live.
people die.

there's millions of reasons why in the inbetween.

we can all point to the tragic and say "if only!" but as you cited earlier, we're worse than saddam.

fine. how many iraqis died per year under saddams rule.

to be honest, i don't know this answer. i'm sure the deaths accellerated. but how many died under saddam.

don't hide it. coat it, or make it something else. a simple number will do.

I guess I have too much faith in mankind to culturally evolve past the point of lying to deceive the public and your colleagues into going to war.

By the way, not nearly as many Iraqis died under Saddam. He was evil, but we've inflicted more death and torture on them than he likely would have.

The rhetoric was, "we just know he's going to use those WMDs that he doesn't have again". So we go in and impose financial goals on a third world country because their sitting on plants and dinosaur bones....

Again, I argue we should have taken the more evolved route. Thus, we should have taken a more diplomatic and civilized approach.

Human evolution has done away with things like slavery and has built its own financial and government systems as an aspect of human life.

I know you're not a fan of science. But surely you don't think evolution stops and so we should cease from being an advanced society.

Yes, we should defend our government and financial establishments. But there is no offense in defense..... and we offended.

In the meantime, Bin Laden is "hiding" in his cave mansion with wives # 4, 21 and 32--for the moment. I just can't justify the principle behind the war and its lies.

Did you know how much that cost?
Did you know how many people died?
Did you know how many lies were told?
Did you like having the wool pulled over your eyes?
Did we really care about the Iraqis in the first place?

Did you know your IGNORANT liberalism just got you added to another ignore list?

And trust me Ben, you don't have clue. Your pathetic little arguments never hold up, as has been proven over and over and over and over and over and over on here, and yet you still feel the need to spew the same drivel over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...I for one have gotten tired of proving and seeing you proven wrong and ignorant over and over and over and over again...welcome to the list...keep quiet!

I guess I have too much faith in mankind to culturally evolve past the point of lying to deceive the public and your colleagues into going to war.

By the way, not nearly as many Iraqis died under Saddam. He was evil, but we've inflicted more death and torture on them than he likely would have.

The rhetoric was, "we just know he's going to use those WMDs that he doesn't have again". So we go in and impose financial goals on a third world country because their sitting on plants and dinosaur bones....

Again, I argue we should have taken the more evolved route. Thus, we should have taken a more diplomatic and civilized approach.

Human evolution has done away with things like slavery and has built its own financial and government systems as an aspect of human life.

I know you're not a fan of science. But surely you don't think evolution stops and so we should cease from being an advanced society.

Yes, we should defend our government and financial establishments. But there is no offense in defense..... and we offended.

In the meantime, Bin Laden is "hiding" in his cave mansion with wives # 4, 21 and 32--for the moment. I just can't justify the principle behind the war and its lies.

you have hope. so do i.

now back up the stupid **** you say about bush and how he's worse than saddam. back it up or stop the crap.

I guess I have too much faith in mankind to culturally evolve past the point of lying to deceive the public and your colleagues into going to war.

By the way, not nearly as many Iraqis died under Saddam. He was evil, but we've inflicted more death and torture on them than he likely would have.

The rhetoric was, "we just know he's going to use those WMDs that he doesn't have again". So we go in and impose financial goals on a third world country because their sitting on plants and dinosaur bones....

Again, I argue we should have taken the more evolved route. Thus, we should have taken a more diplomatic and civilized approach.

Human evolution has done away with things like slavery and has built its own financial and government systems as an aspect of human life.

I know you're not a fan of science. But surely you don't think evolution stops and so we should cease from being an advanced society.

Yes, we should defend our government and financial establishments. But there is no offense in defense..... and we offended.

In the meantime, Bin Laden is "hiding" in his cave mansion with wives # 4, 21 and 32--for the moment. I just can't justify the principle behind the war and its lies.

"There you go again..."

...claiming that to hold *your* worldview is to be "more evolved" than the monkeys and pigs who disagree with you. You obviously do not read anything from history, nor antiquity. Read any debates by Athenian scholars, for instance, and if you redact specific references to the time, you CANNOT tell the difference from political debates of today - all the arguments are the same as today, even the two worldviews squaring off in the debates. Furthermore, your idea that the abolition of slavery (assuming here you're referring to slavery in the US) is due to folks being more evolved is nonsense. After all, it was the primordial ooze of Christian theology that led to abolition, not the more evolved secular humanism. I'll also remind you that slavery itself was justified by the same argument you just made, that some people are more evolved and therefore more entitled to human rights than others. That same argument came up again during the Holocost (6+ million dead "less evolved" people). And again during Stalin's purge (50+ million dead "less evolved" people). And again during Mao's Great Leap Forward and then his Cultural Revolution (estimated 45-72 million dead "less evolved" people). All told, probably a hundred millions souls perished during the 20th century at the hands of more evolved folks such as yourself.

Your statistics on deaths in Iraq under Sadam vs the Iraq war are also, ironically, based in faith rather than fact. It is estimated over half a million died as a result of civillian executions alone (around 600k) - and usually for the "heinous" crime of being suspected of being disloyal to Saddam. One of his favorite methods of execution was to put the victom in a plastic shredder - feet first. With their family watching. And we courtmartialed our soldiers for taking pictures of them pointing and laughing at prisoners' genetalia. That doesn't even count the 100,000 Kurds estimated to have died in a single operation alone (Anfal).

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sir Arthur Keith wrote: "The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the 'national front' of Europe is also the 'evolutionary front;' he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people."59 and "Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?"19[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting ization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of s." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."59[/FONT]